Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T13:09:27.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Othman (Abu Qatada) v. The United Kingdom (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bruce Zagaris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has issued a judgment in the case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom. The Court ruled that the United Kingdom would violate the Applicant’s Article 6 right to a fair trial if it were to deport him to Jordan, where he is sought on terrorism charges. The judgment is significant because it addresses the permissibility of expelling an individual to a third country to face a criminal prosecution, one in which evidence obtained through torture may be used in the case.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 496 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 RB (Algeria) (FC) and another (Appellants) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and OO (Jordan) (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Original Appellant and Cross-respondent), [2009] UKHL 10 (appeal taken from EWCA).

2 Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, App. No. 8139/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 260 (2012), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-108629.

3 Id.

4 Id. ¶ 261.

5 Id. ¶ 278.

6 Id. ¶ 282.

7 Id. ¶ 264.

8 Id. ¶¶ 196-205.

9 Einhorn v. France, App. No. 71555/01, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 33 (2001), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-22159; Sejdovic v. Italy, App. No. 56581/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 84, (2006), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-72629; Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, App. No.9808/02, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 56 (2005), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/fra/pages/search.aspx?i=001-68625.

10 Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden, App. No. 13284/04, Eur. Ct.H.R. ¶ 47 (2005), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-70841.

11 Al-Moayad v. Germany, App. No. 35865/03, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 101 (2007), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-79710.

12 Id.; see also Stijn, Smet, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom: Questioning Gäfgen?, Strasbourg Observers (Feb. 8, 2012)Google Scholar, http://strasbourgobservers.com/2012/02/08/othman-abu-qatadav-the-united-kingdom-questioning-gafgen (comparing Othman to Gäfgen and the implications of the Court’s statement that in addition to torture, “similar considerations may apply in respect of evidence obtained by other forms of ill-treatment which fall short of torture.”).

13 Ahmad v. Wigen, 910 F.2d 1063 (2d Cir. 1990).

14 John, T. Parry, International Extradition, the Rule of Non-Inquiry, and the Problem of Sovereignty , 90 B.U. L. Rev. 1973, 1988-89 (2013)Google Scholar.

15 Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 702 (2008).

16 Babar Ahmad et al. v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09, 67354/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-110267.